New Warmist Prognostication: A One In Three Chance Of Record Rainfall

It’s time for yet another in a long line of scary doom-predictions from the Cult of Climastrology

Climate change brings one-in-three chance of record rainfall, warns Met Office

There is now a one-in-three chance of record rainfall hitting part of England and Wales each winter, according to new Met Office study which highlights the risk of major flooding as the climate warms.

The researchers warned that global warming would change the risk of extreme weather and suggested politicians should bear this in mind when planning to protect the public, businesses and infrastructure.

A series of storms in the winter of 2013/14 caused widespread flooding and about £1bn-worth of damage in the Thames River valley.

So, because Weather Happened (and it was harsh winter weather, but, hey, according to CoC dogma, winter is now caused by warming greenhouse gases) through one winter, Doom. Anyhow, can you guess how they know this?

Writing in the journal Nature Communications, the Met Office team said they had used computer models of the climate to show that those storms “could have been anticipated”.

Computer models, of course. Interestingly, the very same computer models failed to “anticipate” the harsh winter weather beforehand. But, then, they throw in a disclaimer

The researchers, led by Dr Vikki Thompson, added that these estimates of the risks were “only valid in the current climate”.

“Future climate change is likely to alter the chances of extremes,” they wrote. “This is a significant risk and could be used to inform decision makers on the likelihood and intensity of unprecedented rainfall events in the near future to protect the public, business and infrastructure from extreme rainfall and flooding.”

Of course, what they’re doing here is to protect their future scare-mongering predictions from what always happens: people look back and say “um, yeah, you were wrong. Very wrong. Again.” They’ve given themselves an out.

Unsurprisingly, the Met Team is using this to push more Central Government authority and dominance. Surprise?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “New Warmist Prognostication: A One In Three Chance Of Record Rainfall”

  1. Jeffery says:

    It’s telling that the Science Deniers never take into consideration the damages caused by global warming. They only talk about how a carbon tax will hurt poor folks (the first time in history that Con Men have “concern” for the poor).

    In the past decade, we’ve had our third “100 yr flood” in St. Louis County, destroying homes and businesses and forcing taxpayers to construct levees and a new highway interchange! In the 90s we experienced 2 “500 yr floods” and the taxpayers built a tRump sized levee to keep the might Missouri River in its banks.

    Imagine what remediating the 3 ft rise along the US coasts will cost.

    Mr. Gore was right all along. And it’s only going to get worse.

    • Alan McIntire says:

      Actually, there has been a slight DOWNTURN in extreme weather events since 1910.

      Go to

      and see for yourself

      You’ll see a menu box for a graph with 3 select items
      region, period, indicator

      That “without tropical cyclone indicator” looked like a cherry picking red flag to me,
      so I selected “with tropical cylone indicator”, and ran a correlation in “R” between “time” and “extreme weather events.

      I got
      (Intercept) v
      54.63091 -0.01394

      which shows a slight DECREASE in extreme weather events between 1910 and 2016.

      Such a trend is not significant, however.

      Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
      (Intercept) 54.63091 3.03771 17.984 <2e-16 ***
      v -0.01394 0.01144 -1.218 0.226

      The trend will show a deviation of that size happening nearly 23% of the time by chance alone.

    • Millie_woods says:

      Which one of Al’s mansions is your favorite?

  2. Jl says:

    Jeffery’s off his meds, again. There’s no proof your floods were in anyway affected by gw. And as said above, the evidence shows “extreme weather” (whatever that is), is actually decreasing. “Damages caused by gw..”. What damage? You have no proof. And we were right about Gore all the time-he’s an idiot. Not one thing he’s predicted has come true, or can be scientifically tied to gw. See for example the Arctic ice. It’s still there.

  3. JGlanton says:

    Global warming is causing more floods in St. Louis??? I thought global warming was causing more droughts, and that droughts were the “new normal”.
    It must be nice to be part of a religion where every natural occurrence is proof of your deity.

    It turns out that heat waves are becoming less common in Missouri, happening only half as often as they did 100 years ago. Most of Missouri maximum temperature records were set in 1936, 1932, 1954, and 1918. For example Clinton, Missouri and Lamar, Missouri reached 118 degrees in 1936. Appleton reached 116 in 1954. Lockwood reached 118 in 1954, a year where a bunch of cities hit their max record. Marble Hill hit it in 1901. Mexico, Missouri hit it in 1934. Donington and Farmingtion hit their max of 114 in 1934. Etc. etc. Missouri is clearly cooler today than it was for most of the decade around 1936.

    Missouri’s biggest flood disasters happened long ago.

    • david7134 says:

      Doesn’t StLous have a levee system. Was that put up just for looks. It did cause more problems, but that is an example of government at work.

  4. Tuesday morning links

     Can’t Afford a Vacation? Blame the State!  The billion-dollar palaces of Apple, Facebook and Google  Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies The stair story:  Everything You Need to Know about Government, in One Stor

Pirate's Cove